Vishal Rattewal case: HC says criticising a brand online is not infringement
Representative image: succo / Pixabay
Delhi High Court let Niva Bupa withdraw a Rs 5 crore trademark suit against influencer Vishal Rattewal, ruling naming a brand in criticism is not infringement.
What Happened
In the Vishal Rattewal–Niva Bupa dispute, the Delhi High Court has ruled that naming a company while criticising it on social media is not trademark infringement, and ordered Niva Bupa Health Insurance to pay a token cost of Re 1 to the influencer it had sued for Rs 5 crore. The order of Justice Anup J. Bhambhani, dated September 21, 2026 and reported in detail this week, allowed the insurer to withdraw the suit from the court's Intellectual Property Division and file a fresh case in a proper civil forum.
Key Facts
- The case: Niva Bupa Health Insurance sued influencer Vishal Rattewal over his posts on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X.
- What the insurer wanted: a permanent injunction, removal of the posts, an apology and Rs 5 crore in damages, according to reports of the case.
- The posts: they referred to an August 2026 order of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI) that barred the insurer from opening new places of business for six months.
- The ruling: Justice Bhambhani held that using a company's trade mark or name only to refer to it, by someone not trading under that mark, is not use "in the course of trade" under the Trade Marks Act.
- The court's view of the filing: it called the suit a "misuse of the special jurisdiction" of the Intellectual Property Division.
- The outcome: Niva Bupa may withdraw and file a new civil suit on the same facts, after paying notional costs of Re 1 to Rattewal.
- What was not decided: the order does not rule on whether the posts were defamatory or otherwise unlawful.
Why It Matters
More young Indians now share their experiences with banks, insurers, airlines and apps through reels, videos and threads, and some build large followings doing it. Companies sometimes answer such posts with legal notices or lawsuits. A common tactic is to frame the complaint as a trademark case, because a company's name and logo are registered marks and the Delhi High Court has a dedicated Intellectual Property Division that can grant quick orders.
This ruling draws a line around that tactic. Trademark law exists to stop one trader from using another's brand to sell goods or services, for example by putting a famous logo on a rival product. The court said a critic who simply names the company he is talking about is not selling anything under that brand, so trademark law is the wrong tool. The Re 1 cost is symbolic, but the court's words about misuse of the IP Division send a clear message to companies thinking of similar suits.
The ruling does not give creators a free pass. The court left the insurer free to bring a defamation or other civil claim in a regular court, where questions such as whether the posts were true, fair or damaging will be tested. Creators who criticise a company still need to stick to facts they can back up, such as an official regulator's order or their own documents, and avoid claims they cannot prove.
| Question | What the court said |
|---|---|
| Is naming a brand in criticism trademark use? | No, if the critic is not trading under that mark |
| Was the IP Division the right forum? | No; the court called the filing a misuse |
| Can the insurer sue again? | Yes, in a proper civil court, after paying Re 1 |
| Were the posts found defamatory? | Not decided in this order |
Impact
Short-term: the influencer's posts are not taken down by this order, and the insurer must start again in a different forum if it wants to pursue its complaint. Other companies may think twice before filing trademark suits against critics in the IP Division.
Long-term: the order adds to a body of Indian rulings that separate commercial misuse of a brand from comment and criticism. It may help creators, consumer groups and journalists argue that naming a company in a review or complaint is not, by itself, a trademark wrong.
Who is affected: content creators and reviewers, consumers who post complaints online, insurers and other companies that monitor social media, and lawyers who handle brand disputes.
Key Takeaway
The Delhi High Court has said that naming a company while criticising it online is not trademark infringement, while leaving the door open to other claims if posts are false or damaging.
Questions and Answers
What happened in the Vishal Rattewal–Niva Bupa dispute?
Niva Bupa Health Insurance sued influencer Vishal Rattewal for Rs 5 crore over social media posts about the company. The Delhi High Court held the trademark suit was not maintainable in its IP Division and let the insurer withdraw it after paying Re 1 in costs.
Why did the court impose a cost of only Re 1?
The cost was a notional condition for allowing the insurer to withdraw the suit and refile it elsewhere. Its value is symbolic; the court's finding that the suit misused the IP Division's special jurisdiction is the main point.
Can a company sue a creator for using its name in a review?
Not under trademark law merely for naming it, according to this ruling, if the creator is not using the brand to sell goods or services. A company can still bring a defamation or other civil suit in the proper court if it believes the content is false or harmful.
What should creators who review companies keep in mind?
The ruling protects naming a brand in criticism, but it does not decide whether any particular post is true or fair. Creators are safest when they rely on verifiable facts, such as official orders or their own records, and clearly separate fact from opinion.
Disclaimer: Prepared by the Peepals newsroom from publicly available sources with AI assistance. Information is accurate to the best of our knowledge at the time of publication and may change. Images may be representative. Not professional advice. Report an error via our contact page.
Sourced and fact-checked by the Peepals Global Editorial Team
Reported, fact-checked and published by the Peepals Global Editorial Team.
